Your analogy is a flawed:

[wolven7]

If someone yells "Skank" at you, on the Street, you yell "Go fuck your mother" as you keep walking.

But on the internet? Apparently you sue.

My name is Damien Williams, and I am here to inform you that there is no forethought malice among Internet Trolls.

Kyra Phillips, my name is Damien Williams, and I am telling you that the "Anonymous Bloggers" without verification or fact checking or credentials who make things up should be thought of as analogous to homeless people shouting things at you, on the side of the road. Unless you really think there's something to it, you should probably just walk past it.

You are public figures and, as such, you are visible to more people than are visible to you. What's next? If you happen to overhear a meeting of the "People Who Dislike You Club," are you going to sue them, for saying bad things about you?

Suck it up, and move on.

Comments

[momentai.livejournal.com]

who's kyra phillips?

[wolven.livejournal.com]

CNN Anchor Woman defending a supermodel's lawsuit.

[l-the-fangirl.livejournal.com]

This is good advice.

Especially since I don't know who Kyra Phillips is, until you head-desk about her thin skin on your LJ.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Precisely.

[moonandserpent.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, if someone is actually saying something libelous, then why shouldn't they be open to same same vulnrabilities as if they said it in any other form of media?

Yeah, this particular case is a bad start to the idea of people being responsible for their words, but...

[wolven.livejournal.com]

And that's my problem: That this is a Really Bad Case to use to set the precedent, because the facts of this case will be spun out to give any interpretation of Internet-based libel/slander laws a kind of far reaching power they shouldn't have, most likely encroaching onto actual First Amendment areas.